Rod Langway 1982-1984 question.

[Midnight Judges]

The change in the Caps team from '82 to '83 was tremendous though. They were garbage before Langway, and a playoff team after (unfortunately ran into a stacked Islanders dynasty 3 years in a row).

They surrendered 50 fewer goals after Langway and Stevens came on. That's a huge change.

They went from 65 points to 94, and they actually scored fewer goals in '83 than '82.

Clearly someone was having a huge impact and when you look at the roster changes, there's nothing all that glaring aside from Langway and Stevens. Obviously there was a coaching change as well.

When attributing team success, Langway was so obviously the leader of that team. He was calling team meetings. He was calling players out - even the bigger and established names. He was mandating tougher practices. Here's a few snippets:

With one game still left in the regular season, Langway sensed the Capitals might already have played theirs. So Saturday, on a day off after more than an off night against Detroit, he collected the players for a meeting and mandated that they go one on one with each other.

"The sort of thing coaches usually do," Coach Bryan Murray volunteered. "Pointing fingers at guys maybe not contributing. Like: 'Dennis Maruk, you gotta work hard . . . Bengt Gustafsson, you've got to play every night, not spotty.' "

Without pointing any fingers retroactively, Langway elaborated:

"We'd been going so well. We'd lose one, then win two, that kind of thing. Never lose two in a row. To get above .500 in our division with all the young players we had made everybody happy. All of a sudden we lost three straight, and some guys weren't showing up.

"They were bitching and pointing fingers. I'm the captain; it was my turn to speak up. I said we're going against the Islanders (in the playoffs) and if everybody plays for himself we might as well not show up. Just give them the three games.

"It was right there, one on one. Two hours, with a case of beer. A couple of problems needed to be settled--and were."

Next day, the Capitals ripped the Rangers, 3-0.

"Now it's enjoyable," Langway said. "Now we're a team."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1983/04/09/the-going-gets-tough/1891d105-7acf-488b-a641-937d9c105fe7/

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hmph, sounds like Scott Stevens took that to heart. That's exactly the type of stories I heard in New Jersey while he was captain there...

 

[JackSlater]

Slavin winning a Norris wouldn't be any weirder IMO, in terms of one-dimensionality, than Karlsson winning the 22–23 Norris. I would personally prefer Slavin in that particular comparison, because I just think it's more conducive to winning games (I'm not talking about prime Ottawa version Karlsson here, just to make that clear). Of course ideally you would want a top tier two-way horse, like say prime Victor Hedman or Duncan Keith, in front of any of those two examples, but it's not always these players show up at the top of their games over a whole 82-game schedule, because I would figure it's a pretty draining exercise. Keith seldom did that, but turned it on for the playoffs instead, same with Hedman most of the time.

Going into next year I'd certainly take Slavin over Karlsson, particularly if my team was a contender. I don't mind Karlsson winning as he should have had a few more from years ago and no one was really impressive anyway, but I didn't care for his play when I saw him. The issue with Langway is that he was against guys who could be elite or near elite offensively and defensively.

The change in the Caps team from '82 to '83 was tremendous though. They were garbage before Langway, and a playoff team after (unfortunately ran into a stacked Islanders dynasty 3 years in a row).

They surrendered 50 fewer goals after Langway and Stevens came on. That's a huge change.

They went from 65 points to 94, and they actually scored fewer goals in '83 than '82.

Clearly someone was having a huge impact and when you look at the roster changes, there's nothing all that glaring aside from Langway and Stevens. Obviously there was a coaching change as well.

When attributing team success, Langway was so obviously the leader of that team. He was calling team meetings. He was calling players out - even the bigger and established names. He was mandating tougher practices. Here's a few snippets:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1983/04/09/the-going-gets-tough/1891d105-7acf-488b-a641-937d9c105fe7/

Langway always received most of the credit, and he was the best player to join the team, but these things are always oversimplified. For example I'd say that there was a glaring difference or two in the roster outside of Langway and Stevens. Looking at the Langway trade, he's an upgrade on Green but Green was a very good player. Jarvis (and Laughlin) for Walter is another win for Washington, with Jarvis in particular a huge add for the team's defensive performance. Then Washington got Engblom for basically free in the trade. Engblom was a second team all star the year before and had just made Canada's 1981 Canada Cup team. That's a huge add. Another big thing is that Washington went from Dave Parro, not an NBA calibre goaltender, starting 52 games, to Pat Riggin, NHL calibre goaltener, taking most of those starts in a platoon system. As noted they also had a full season with a legitimate NHL coach and not the 1-12 handicap they started the previous year with under Green.

Outside of Langway the team added an improvement at forward in Jarvis and Loughlin, an all star level defenceman in Engblom, a young top defenceman in Stevens, replaced a bad goalie with a mediocre one, and had coaching stability. Langway was the best player on the team however and he really represented the stylistic change that came to Washington.

 

[Dingo]

The Hart has too much ‘artistic’ interpretation in its description. Who was he best storyline? Comeback story? Against all odds? Or, with the odds, the next chosen one comes to form.

Silly award. Need a retroactive ‘best forward’ award.

Anyways, Langway….. I got nothing that hasn’t been said - dont know how good you would have to be at defence to properly win an all around award with downright pitiful offence, but….. Gainey still gets mentioned as ‘the greatest player in Soviet eyes’ so…

 

[seventieslord]

One thing about Rod Langway having "downright pitiful offense", don't forget that for the vast majority of NHL defensemen, their ability to put up points is largely based on situation and opportunity. Most have relatively similar ES production over the long term, for example, while there are always outliers.

For example, does Steve Smith have downright pitiful offense? We'd normally consider him a two-way guy. But he scored 234 non-PP points in 804 NHL games (0.29). Sheldon Souray had 166 in 758 (0.22). Bryan McCabe had 267 in 1135 (0.24). Mathieu Schneider, 380 in 1259 (0.30). Even Rob Blake had only 398 in 1270 (0.31).

Rod Langway's 0.29 ESP/GP doesn't seem so bad (there are era considerations to be made, plus these are full-career numbers that don't say a lot about their primes, but at least they are apples-to-apples).

 

[tarheelhockey]

Another big thing is that Washington went from Dave Parro, not an NBA calibre goaltender, starting 52 games, to Pat Riggin, NHL calibre goaltener, taking most of those starts in a platoon system.

I thought that was a typo at first. Well played

 

[tarheelhockey]

Perhaps we just have different interpretations of what constitutes a controversy. 10–11 was a really close three-way race (Lids, Weber, Chara), plus Visnovsky (of all people) took home 20 (!) first place votes. I don't remember that being particularly controversial, outside of the fact that some people complained about Lidström getting some reputation votes.

In the context of a Norris ballot, if a close three-way race where isn’t controversial, what is?

(Also I disagree that the ‘11 race wasn’t controversial. A lot of people strongly disagreed with Lidstrom winning that one on reputation, and to this day I see people characterize it as an illegitimate “lifetime achievement” type win. This was a hot topic at the time, because Lidstrom vs Orr/Bourque/Harvey/Shore/Potvin/Robinson debates were common toward the end of his career.)

 

[sr edler]

In the context of a Norris ballot, if a close three-way race where isn’t controversial, what is?

(Also I disagree that the ‘11 race wasn’t controversial. A lot of people strongly disagreed with Lidstrom winning that one on reputation, and to this day I see people characterize it as an illegitimate “lifetime achievement” type win. This was a hot topic at the time, because Lidstrom vs Orr/Bourque/Harvey/Shore/Potvin/Robinson debates were common toward the end of his career.)

Yeah, but people shouldn't award count like that, it's pretty dumb. It's also putting way too much agency to random journalists. We have a guy here a few posts above complaining about the Hart being "artistic", but there's nothing scientific about any of these awards where people vote on them.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yeah, but people shouldn't award count like that, it's pretty dumb. It's also putting way too much agency to random journalists. We have a guy here a few posts above complaining about the Hart being "artistic", but there's nothing scientific about any of these awards where people vote on them.

Oh, I totally agree with that. The best thing they ever did was make the ballots public so we can use discretion about such things as whether the one vote against McDavid was meaningful or just someone being an ass.

 

[JackSlater]

I thought that was a typo at first. Well played

It was completely a typo, presumably because I was watching 80s basketball at the time. Just because it's a typo that doesn't make it untrue though.

 

[wetcoast]

My 80’s Norris trophies revised. These were my thoughts at the time as well:

80 - Robinson
81 - Potvin
82 - Wilson
83 - Howe
84 - Bourque
85 - Bourque
86 - Howe
87 - Bourque
88 - Bourque
89 - Chelios

Good list but where is Paul Coffey and I'm not a huge fan of his....

I personally don't focus too much on any award winner but rather Norris worthy seasons for Dmen.

Langway was largely a narrative vote and a backlash to Carlyle the year before.

 

[Johnny Engine]

One thing about Rod Langway having "downright pitiful offense", don't forget that for the vast majority of NHL defensemen, their ability to put up points is largely based on situation and opportunity.

Someone who followed the early 80s Habs can probably set us straight on this, but from going through each season to see who was getting points and powerplay points on each team, it sure looks like Langway's top-3 point-producing seasons are direct results of Guy Lapointe missing 47 games, then 36 games, and then getting traded to St. Louis.

 

[Moose Head]

Good list but where is Paul Coffey and I'm not a huge fan of his....

I personally don't focus too much on any award winner but rather Norris worthy seasons for Dmen.

Langway was largely a narrative vote and a backlash to Carlyle the year before.

Just don’t think Coffey was good enough defensively to win an award for best defenseman in those years, although he was a pretty incredible player, just lazy defensively in the 80’s. Langway was incredible too.

I have no problem with the one Coffey won in Detroit and he would have got my vote that season.

 

[The Panther]

Just don’t think Coffey was good enough defensively to win an award for best defenseman in those years, although he was a pretty incredible player, just lazy defensively in the 80’s.

Defencemen plus/minus in 1983-84 and 1984-85:

+109 Coffey
+98 Huddy (Coffey's partner)
+86 Potvin
+81 M. Howe
+81 Bourque

Now, of course, you're going to say, "well, plus/minus doesn't mean you're good defensively." But then, here's my question: Does the guy who's already got the best goal-differential in the entire NHL need to be better defensively in order to be the best player at his position?

 

[JackSlater]

Defencemen plus/minus in 1983-84 and 1984-85:

+109 Coffey
+98 Huddy (Coffey's partner)
+86 Potvin
+81 M. Howe
+81 Bourque

Now, of course, you're going to say, "well, plus/minus doesn't mean you're good defensively." But then, here's my question: Does the guy who's already got the best goal-differential in the entire NHL need to be better defensively in order to be the best player at his position?

Coffey would have been a better player had he been better defensively, obviously, but I think that people get too caught up in the name of the position. It's a small thing but I do believe that if the players who stay high in the offensive zone were called guards rather than defencemen, as is the case in basketball where that position has similar origins, people would think of the position a bit differently. In the end the goal is just to be as effective as possible to help the team win.

 

[wetcoast]

Defencemen plus/minus in 1983-84 and 1984-85:

+109 Coffey
+98 Huddy (Coffey's partner)
+86 Potvin
+81 M. Howe
+81 Bourque

Now, of course, you're going to say, "well, plus/minus doesn't mean you're good defensively." But then, here's my question: Does the guy who's already got the best goal-differential in the entire NHL need to be better defensively in order to be the best player at his position?

4 of the top 5 players over that 2 year period were Oilers with Gretzky on top by quite a bit.

Coffey was in fact "sheltered" by Wayne and the Oilers in this regard and didn't tilt the ice in the way one thinks by looking at his points, team situation and career much like Mario.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

ok very very small sample, but a while back, during an OPPF discussion, someone DMed me a shift of langway playing defence. i think it was at an all-star game of all situations. so grain of salt obviously.

but the point wasn’t necessarily even how good he was (he was tremendous) but how he looked completely different than the guy those of us who never saw him in his prime imagine him looking like. it was astounding how much, and how effectively, he moved. it looked like hakeem olajuwon guarding all five positions at once. whereas the stereotype of langway is as his big huge slow guy hanging back and bottlenecking the opposing rush and just crosschecking guys in the crease like derian hatcher.

it was like peak early 90s chelios in terms how much ice he covered, and with his reach you were basically watching the defensize zone shrink before your eyes. again, hakeem feels like the best comparison here, where in one instant he goes from blocking a shot in the post to contesting at the wing and forcing a bad pass to causing a turnover by the pt guard.

so the thing i’m wondering is, with his obvious genius level hockey iq, how was langway on the breakout? could it be a situation like bill russell or wes unseld where ok he doesn’t score much but his ability to transition defence into offence is even more critical to the team’s offence than what the pt guard does or the guy who scores the basket? i have no idea but this is what i wonder.

 

[JackSlater]

ok very very small sample, but a while back, during an OPPF discussion, someone DMed me a shift of langway playing defence. i think it was at an all-star game of all situations. so grain of salt obviously.

but the point wasn’t necessarily even how good he was (he was tremendous) but how he looked completely different than the guy those of us who never saw him in his prime imagine him looking like. it was astounding how much, and how effectively, he moved. it looked like hakeem olajuwon guarding all five positions at once. whereas the stereotype of langway is as his big huge slow guy hanging back and bottlenecking the opposing rush and just crosschecking guys in the crease like derian hatcher.

it was like peak early 90s chelios in terms how much ice he covered, and with his reach you were basically watching the defensize zone shrink before your eyes. again, hakeem feels like the best comparison here, where in one instant he goes from blocking a shot in the post to contesting at the wing and forcing a bad pass to causing a turnover by the pt guard.

so the thing i’m wondering is, with his obvious genius level hockey iq, how was langway on the breakout? could it be a situation like bill russell or wes unseld where ok he doesn’t score much but his ability to transition defence into offence is even more critical to the team’s offence than what the pt guard does or the guy who scores the basket? i have no idea but this is what i wonder.

I've called Langway the most visually impressive defensive player I've seen. His defence is very noticeable. Not sure there's much to Langway on the breakout other than making a good quick pass to someone else once he gets the puck. Which is generally what you want. I think Engblom did more in terms of helping the breakout, at least in Montreal.

Not really the place but I'll add this too - there's a lot of mythmaking surrounding Russell's offensive game in my opinion, based on the numbers but moreso watching him whenever I can. I honestly believe that the vast majority of people know, deep down, that Chamberlain was clearly better, so they need intangibles to throw in the face of Chamberlain's overwhelming tangible superiority. How else can you get selfish ballhog Chamberlain putting his own scoring ahead of that of the team while altruistic Russell sacrificed his own scoring so that his teammates could score... all while Chamberlain was the most efficient scorer in the league in his prime and regularly blew Russell away on that front too? Or Chamberlain leading the NBA in assists... but selfishly so? Various other tall tales of course as well. Not to take anything away from Unseld and his full court bombs on the breakout though.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It was completely a typo, presumably because I was watching 80s basketball at the time. Just because it's a typo that doesn't make it untrue though.

Really? I thought it was hilarious too.

Sorry man but I'm making this "not even an NBA caliber goaltender" meme stick lol.

 

[JackSlater]

Really? I thought it was hilarious too.

Sorry man but I'm making this "not even an NBA caliber goaltender" meme stick lol.

By all means. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Really? I thought it was hilarious too.

Sorry man but I'm making this "not even an NBA caliber goaltender" meme stick lol.

I was gonna say, I will absolutely be slinging that one at a goalie in the near future.

 

[Moose Head]

ok very very small sample, but a while back, during an OPPF discussion, someone DMed me a shift of langway playing defence. i think it was at an all-star game of all situations. so grain of salt obviously.

but the point wasn’t necessarily even how good he was (he was tremendous) but how he looked completely different than the guy those of us who never saw him in his prime imagine him looking like. it was astounding how much, and how effectively, he moved. it looked like hakeem olajuwon guarding all five positions at once. whereas the stereotype of langway is as his big huge slow guy hanging back and bottlenecking the opposing rush and just crosschecking guys in the crease like derian hatcher.

I know he’s a forward, but Gainey was a lot like that when he was at his best.

 

[Johnny Engine]

I know he’s a forward, but Gainey was a lot like that when he was at his best.

There was also a Jere Lehtinen shift we discussed on this board a while back where he was just snuffing out one Anaheim possession after another, looking like he could have killed off a 5-on-1 if he had to.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I know he’s a forward, but Gainey was a lot like that when he was at his best.

There was also a Jere Lehtinen shift we discussed on this board a while back where he was just snuffing out one Anaheim possession after another, looking like he could have killed off a 5-on-1 if he had to.

alex burrows on the pk. like watch burrows defend a 5 on 3, it’s ridiculous how much ice he can cover.

i missed the lehtinen discussion but i’d love to see the footage if you have a link.

 

[Johnny Engine]

alex burrows on the pk. like watch burrows defend a 5 on 3, it’s ridiculous how much ice he can cover.

i missed the lehtinen discussion but i’d love to see the footage if you have a link.

I believe it was this:

From one of Mike's video breakdowns.